25 154. Later, in the public hearing and in its final arguments, by acknowledging its responsibility regarding the facts of May 6 through 9, 1992, the State did not expressly indicate which rights claimed by the Commission and the common intervener it admits as breached. However, from that expressed by the State it can be concluded that it changed the position it had held in its response to the petition (supra para. 139). In this sense, in said response Peru stated that the determination of the facts and breaches depended on the ruling of its Judicial Power, while in its final arguments the State expressly acknowledged the facts of May 6 through 9, 1992, without having them depend on any decision of domestic courts, and stated that the ruling issued by them is only related to the determination of individual criminal responsibilities. 155. Despite the fact that from the State’s acknowledgment of responsibility it could be concluded that it admits that the rights to life and humane treatment of the inmates were breached from May 6 to 9, 1992, the Court considers that it is adequate to establish, in the corresponding chapters, the judicial consequences of the facts acknowledged by the State, as well as those occurred after May 9, 1992, pursuant to that claimed by the parties6 and the body of evidence of the case. Regarding the alleged victims 156. When acknowledging its responsibility regarding the events of May 6 and 9, 1992 the State did not expressly state that it acknowledged as victims the people indicated under that concept by the Commission and the common intervener. 157. However, based on the fact that the State expressed that “the facts […] cannot be hidden, the pain cannot be hidden, […] those injured cannot be hidden, the pain of the next of kin of the victims cannot be hidden,” the Court considers that the State acknowledged that as a consequence of the facts of May 6 through 9, 1992 there were people who died, people who resulted injured, and people who suffered, including the inmates’ next of kin. 158. As previously stated, the Tribunal will establish who the victims of the acts of violation acknowledged by the State are, pursuant to that claimed by the parties and the body of evidence of the case, also taking into account that it did not present any objection to the evidence provided by the Court on the alleged victims. Likewise, the Tribunal will determine the victims of the events occurred after May 9, 1992 that constitute a breach of the Convention, pursuant to that claimed by the parties and the body of evidence of the case. Regarding the Reparations 159. When acknowledging its responsibility regarding the events of May 6 to 9, 1992 the State referred expressly to the subject of reparations and asked the Court to set the measures of reparation (supra para. 144), stating its firm intent to comply with the measures that correspond to it. The Court will determine the corresponding 6 The Comisión allegad as violated articles 4, 5, 8.1, 25 and 1.1 of the American Convention, in the terms stated in the considerations of this Judgment. The common intervener of the representatives alleged as violated articles 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 24, 25 and 1.1 of the American Convention, as well as articles 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, and articles 4 and 7 of the Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women.